R.C. Deo Sharma, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner who is a Defendant in a suit for rent and ejectment filed by the opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 has, through this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed that the orders dated 30th May, 1983 (Annexure 5) and 28th February, 1984 (Annexure 7) passed by the trial court and the revisional court opposite parties Nos. 2 and 1 respectively, whereby they dismissed the Petitioner's application for rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure be quashed. The suit in question had originally been filed by opposite party No. 3 against the Petitioner on the ground that she was his tenant in a portion of the building on a monthly rent of Rs. 385/ - and her tenancy had been terminated by a notice since the building in question was not governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973, but she had not complied with the notice by making payment of the rent or mesne profits or vacating the premises, and hence relief for eviction and arrears of rent and damages was prayed.
(2.) THE contest on behalf of the Petitioner was on the ground that she was not a tenant of the premises and that her father -in -law Sri Nasar Mahmud had been residing in the disputed premises as a tenant. The building in question was undisputedly constructed in 1970 and the first assessment was made on 1 -4 -1971. Thus when the suit in question was filed on 24 -9 -1977 the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises because it had not completed the age of ten years. During the pendency of the suit, however, the ten years' period was completed and consequently the Act became applicable to the premises. Meanwhile the original landlord had sold the premises to opposite parties Nos. 4 and 5 who were added as Plaintiffs in the suit and have accordingly been imploded as opposite parties in the petition. The Petitioner thereafter made an application for amendment of the written statement to state that the premises were governed by the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972. The amendment was allowed. She made another application to the effect that the plaint did not disclose any cause of action after the Act became applicable to the premises and consequently the plaint was liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 Code of Civil Procedure. The landlord contested this application and after hearing the trial court found in favour of the landlord and rejected the application of the Petitioner. In a revision filed against the aforesaid order, the learned Additional District Judge agreed with the trial court and dismissed the revision. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed for the aforesaid reliefs.
(3.) THE opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5 in their counter -affidavit asserted that the Petitioner was the tenant of the premises and further contended that the suit had been filed when the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was not applicable to the premises and though during the pendency of the suit the aforesaid Act became applicable yet the Petitioner not having complied with the provisions of Section 39 of the said Act was not entitled to any relief against eviction and the cause of action as disclosed in the original plaint still subsisted. It was also contended that the suit having been filed before the said Act became applicable to the premises it was not necessary to base the claim on arrears of rent of four months or more and their remaining unpaid within one month of the notice of demand.;